The bulk update request #6320 is pending approval.

create implication purrely_(archtype) (89) -> yu-gi-oh! (2906)
create implication purrely_(archtype) (89) -> duel_monster (2312)
create implication purrelyly (23) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)
create implication purrely (40) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)
create implication epurrely_happiness (5) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)
create implication epurrely_plump (6) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)
create implication epurrely_beauty (1) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)
create implication expurrely_happiness (3) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)
create implication expurrely_noir (10) -> purrely_(archtype) (89)

Reason: should be self explanatory

also, none of the memories should've been limited

What is purrely_(archtype)? It seems to be a misspelling of "archetype", and there's no wiki for it. The dictionary says archetype is "An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype." or "An ideal example of a type; quintessence." If it's a base form of the creature, the other forms shouldn't imply it.

benjiboyo said:
Reason: should be self explanatory

this might be self-explanatory to people who play Yu-Gi-Oh, but we're not nerds. you're going to have to explain this shit to us.
none of these tags have even have wiki pages.

Would you prefer if the word archetype (i never realized it was mispelled honestly) is changed to species?

Because the series of creatures, including the epurrelies and expurrelies are just "evolved" versions of this same libe of species.

I don't know who started using archetype, which does only make sense to yugioh players. But if species is the better general word, i could change it.

I barely know anything about Yu-gi-oh, but from glancing at the Purrely page in a Yu-Gi-Oh wiki it looks like all those are varieties of a base class. Following the Pokemon and Digimon examples, all those tags should be moved from the character to species category. They should only be in the character namespace if it refers to a specific Purrely (eg. pikachu vs Ash's_pikachu).

I think:

• purrely_(archtype) should be renamed to either purrely or purrely_(yu_gi_oh)
• All variations of Purrely should be species instead of characters
• Benjiboyo's implication chain remains unchanged unless someone else knows better

civil_nitrogen said:
I barely know anything about Yu-gi-oh, but from glancing at the Purrely page in a Yu-Gi-Oh wiki it looks like all those are varieties of a base class. Following the Pokemon and Digimon examples, all those tags should be moved from the character to species category. They should only be in the character namespace if it refers to a specific Purrely (eg. pikachu vs Ash's_pikachu).

I think:

• purrely_(archtype) should be renamed to either purrely or purrely_(yu_gi_oh)
• All variations of Purrely should be species instead of characters
• Benjiboyo's implication chain remains unchanged unless someone else knows better

I'll be honest, i'm pretty sure they were initially tagged characters due to most individual cards being characters, while the whole archetype are the species.

though, this is a pretty obvious case of them being a species. I'm not sure what the greater purrely tag should have as a parenthises though.
as seen in this thread, using (archetype) isn't sustainable for the general user.
removing it is a bad idea since the base purrely is already there, and (Yu-gi-oh) is an odd distinction when they ALL are from it.